With all the back-and-forth between and about Mitt Romney and Barack H. Obama, a New Jersey-based Tea Party activists put together a nifty side-by-side contrast between the two. It examines personal, financial, and professional histories. Line everything up on each side, and the contrast hits you between the eyes.

I'v been hearing those in our government talking about fixing Social Security and Medicare for years. Considering the fact that most in our government are millionaires, and other millionaires outside our government draw social security benefits from the system. I understand that (yes) they pay into social security as everyone should, But I feel that my case is a good example of the problem. I worked hands on labor for almost 30 years until my body would not let me do it anymore. I worked 40 to 60 hours a week and made around $35,000 a year. After becoming disabled I received $1,142 a month in social security benefits ($13,704 a year) a 60+% Drop in income. While the average retired millionaire will receive around $ 80,000 a month in social security benefits, and like I said i do understand that they pay into the system. And I am sure that I am not the only one that see's this to be a problem. I grew up believing that the Social Security System was put in place to help those like myself that work hard to provide for their families, Then through unfortunate events become unable to do so. With that in mind, the working class in America have to be wondering at what point do millionaires consider themselves socially secure. The average worker has to make $25,000 a year for 40 yea...

I'v been hearing those in our government talking about fixing Social Security and Medicare for years. Considering the fact that most in our government are millionaires, and other millionaires outside our government draw social security benefits from the system. I understand that (yes) they pay into social security as everyone should, But I feel that my case is a good example of the problem. I worked hands on labor for almost 30 years until my body would not let me do it anymore. I worked 40 to 60 hours a week and made around $35,000 a year. After becoming disabled I received $1,142 a month in social security benefits ($13,704 a year) a 60+% Drop in income. While the average retired millionaire will receive around $ 80,000 a month in social security benefits, and like I said i do understand that they pay into the system. And I am sure that I am not the only one that see's this to be a problem. I grew up believing that the Social Security System was put in place to help those like myself that work hard to provide for their families, Then through unfortunate events become unable to do so. With that in mind, the working class in America have to be wondering at what point do millionaires consider themselves socially secure. The average worker has to make $25,000 a year for 40 years to make $1,000,000 and most are unable to have any savings and have only bills to pay. While the Millionaires in Our Society only worries seem to be,( How can "I" be Richer ) ( The Greed in Society far out weighs Integrity or Common Sense ) How can we as Americans except that those that have (Millions) but still feel (Socially Insecure) as to draw from the Social Security System. To me this is just (Morally Wrong) and there's no trace of Common Sense in this logic. We The American People Deserve a Better Governing Body as with any successful Employees, We The American People pay those High wages for Our Government to ( Look out for us ). I mean really, Has know one thought to Do The Math. If the Social Security System was (not paying out) to those who should be feeling Socially Secure with their $Millons$ + bank accounts. = A strong Social Security System would emerge from the Greed of the Rich (and they would still be Rich) Just without the Morally Reprehensible Acts of Greed being inflected upon the Social Security System. Current TV, SMS nice ! If I can see this as a problem, then why can't the ones that we pay to catch the glitches see the problem. Lester Reeves, Battle Creek, Michigan

It would seem that Romney's record as Governor of Massachusetts would be a key point of discussion providing us (the electorate) the most relevant/recent information about Romney's experience and ability to manage the country, so why is the Romney campaign not making it a pivotal issue?

Conversely why is the Obama campaign ignoring Romney's governorship? Why jump right over that period of time?

The only conclusion I've been able to come up with is the following:

I'm assuming the Obama campaign doesn't want to highlight Romney's time as Governor as he could be perceived as a "moderate" governor. He was able to run a surplus by cutting spending, increasing fees by more then $300M (drivers license, marriage licenses, gun licenses, etc.) and the removal of tax loopholes, despite conservative critics that called the removal a tax increase. Additionally Romney put in place state wide health care.

No wonder the Obama campaign doesn't want to bring these issues up! Romney sounds like a moderate and, if the Obama campaign made this a point of discussion I'm assuming they're concerned that independent/moderate voters might find Romney's accomplishments (as governor) attractive, so no going there.

So why isn't the Romney campaign making these issues front and center? I'm guessing th...

It would seem that Romney's record as Governor of Massachusetts would be a key point of discussion providing us (the electorate) the most relevant/recent information about Romney's experience and ability to manage the country, so why is the Romney campaign not making it a pivotal issue?

Conversely why is the Obama campaign ignoring Romney's governorship? Why jump right over that period of time?

The only conclusion I've been able to come up with is the following:

I'm assuming the Obama campaign doesn't want to highlight Romney's time as Governor as he could be perceived as a "moderate" governor. He was able to run a surplus by cutting spending, increasing fees by more then $300M (drivers license, marriage licenses, gun licenses, etc.) and the removal of tax loopholes, despite conservative critics that called the removal a tax increase. Additionally Romney put in place state wide health care.

No wonder the Obama campaign doesn't want to bring these issues up! Romney sounds like a moderate and, if the Obama campaign made this a point of discussion I'm assuming they're concerned that independent/moderate voters might find Romney's accomplishments (as governor) attractive, so no going there.

So why isn't the Romney campaign making these issues front and center? I'm guessing the last thing Romney wants to do is point out that he raised fee's in his state, that the combined state/local tax rate went up during his tenure all while enacting state wide health care (in essence parroting what he's saying Obama is doing today) even though he succeeded in running a surplus! I'm assuming he's concerned about eroding his base, so no going there.

Weird! Neither "side" is discussing, in detail, the most germane issue of experience that Romney brings to the table because they're both concerned about how Romney's record will be perceived!

If the Republicans commit suicide again by nominating a non-candidate as they did in 08', I'll be voting for the Libertarian candidate, Governor Gary Johnson. Romney has international financier all over him, his buddies Goldman Sachs are financially conquering Europe, Italy and Greece already lost their country, and he may very well be the plan to take the U.S. I support the Constitution, American sovereignty, individualism, etc, not globalism and a one world government.

OBAMA: To thine own self be true, he had a lot to fix and basically nothing to work with, people who were supposed to aid pissed because he and his family and dog are there, so they were met with whispers as well as opposition, but still they pushed on, they deserve the same opportunities as white house families before them, i think considering what he's working with and the horrible reception and the fact that it continues yet they manage to hold thier heads high and greet warmly shows strength as well as no matter what is thrown at them daily, they catch it and keep on moving, its sad to see how as a country in some things, and in others its as if time has stood still!

The only "Republican" that truly believes in a smaller government and self reliance. The best the Republican Party can come up with is Romney? At lest Ron Paul made many people rethink what role the government should play, even though he won't be our next president.

What does your scrambled violent key hitting nonsense even mean? Are you like, cursing me out, bro? In my personally opinion Romney is an idiot, take his tour out of America. The man can't handle affairs out of the country. He isn't even president and the UK already hates him.

Although this is interesting.. they don't really differ that much when it comes to policy and issues regarding the country. Too many similarities to say which one is better, it is more like which one is more evil.